Since you brought it up..... I know I'm new to this sport and probably have a different take on the handicap system. Before I get sidetracked with my view of the handicap system in general I'll comment on the new world system. I think it only effects a very very small percentage of golfers who compete worldwide and the differences between all the systems was minimal so it's not that big of a deal.

However, when I competed overseas cycling, everyone had to have a UCI racing license so that everyone followed the same rules. And even that was more about doping control and restrictions (thank goodness they lifted the restriction on caffeine).

Now then, back to the handicap system in general. It seems odd to me that everyone is deemed equal during a tournament. I just don't understand why someone who plays 6 times a year (drunk and stoned) should be "equal" to someone who has been playing 30 years, practices twice a week and plays every week while taking lessons from a PGA professional once a month.

I trained 6 days a week on the bike. Race officials didn't give some smuck who uses his bike for beer runs a 30 minute head start! There were separate races/classes for beginners and novices so that they could compete against each other for motivation as they moved up the ranks. But certainly beginners were NOT given a handicap or time bonus to compete with experts and elites.

There doesn't seem to be any incentive in golf to improve. I can have a double bogey handicap (36) and all I need to do is bogey 1 hole to beat a scratch golfer??? That's stupid. And don't even get me going on the golfers who enter a tournament with a 20+ handicap and shoot a low 80's..... Do away with the handicap system and that takes care of those people!

Again just my thoughts as a newbie to this sport.

Hmmm, after reading my post, I'm starting to see why the UCI limited us to only two cups of coffee a day!!

[[Edited by Alex326 on Thursday February 22, 2018 7:26 AM]]

Message #87213 - This was a reply to message #87212

kviser

RE: World Handicap System - Thoughts

SoCal Community Staff

Member Since: February 4, 2005

Favorite Golfer: Fred CouplesFavorite Golf Course: River Ridge

Thursday February 22, 2018 7:58 AM

While there is a lot to consider, I see three items that look nice and beneficial to the average Joe hacker:

1. A calculation that considers the impact that abnormal course and weather conditions might have on a player’s performance each day.
2. Daily handicap revisions, taking account of the course and weather conditions calculation.
3. A limit of Net Double Bogey on the maximum hole score (for handicapping purposes only).

I think back to the 1970's when I took up golf and there was just a course rating and no slope rating.

The course rating was based primarily on the courses length and I think was factored around how a scratch golfer should fare on that course. Since over 99% of all golfers are NOT scratch golfers, there was already a huge flaw in using just the course rating. The other huge flaw was in comparing courses. A player who consistently played a tough, tight course to achieve their 10 handicap was a much better player than another player who always played an easy, wide open course who was also a 10 handicap on the easier course. There was no slope ratings to calculate a course handicap to differentiate tougher courses in those days when you played somewhere other than your "home" course.

I had been playing for awhile before they added the slope rating, which factors in how they perceive a bogey golfer would fare on any particular course.

I find the slope rating to usually be a pretty good indicator of the courses difficulty level. I pay MUCH more attention to the slope rating when evaluating tee choices than the total yardage or the course rating. Courses with a high slope are going to have more holes that will bite a player of my skill level if I am not playing really well. And maybe even if I am!

My old home course in North Carolina is only rated 71.0, par 71 and plays slightly less than 6400 yards. However, it has a 131 slope because water can come into play on 12/18 holes.

Another course I used to play near where I grew up is rated 75.4 with a 144 slope, well over 7000 yards from the tips. I knew it was a very tough course and seeing that it is rated very comparably with some of the toughest courses I have played in So Cal reaffirms that. It is interesting for me to evaluate the courses I grew up playing, neither of which has significantly changed, to courses I currently play with comparable ratings/slope, just as a basis of comparison.

[[Edited by Nickesquire on Saturday February 24, 2018 5:51 PM]]

The goal is long and straight! But on the many times I cannot seem to hit them straight, I at least want to hit them long!

The two aspects I’m not sure I like is only counting 8 scores instead of 10 and the concept of “memory” of past potential. One misunderstood premise of the handicap system is it’s not an indication of your average score, it’s an attempt to determine your potential score when playing well. Using an average of the last 8 will disproportionally impact golfers who are less consistent and could lead to a lot more frustration when someone is only reaching their handicap target on about 20% of their rounds. As for the “memory” concept, one of the biggest frustrations with the current system is the dichotomy between how quickly a handicap can drop after only a couple rounds compared to how slowly it goes back up. Using past history beyond the 20 rounds currently used will slow this even more. For someone who plays a couple times a month, one or two rounds could impact their handicap for over a year. That hardly seems fair or equitable.

Message #87240 - This was a reply to message #87236

michaelko

RE: World Handicap System - Thoughts

NorCal Community Staff

Member Since: October 1, 2003

Favorite Golfer: N/AFavorite Golf Course: N/A

Monday February 26, 2018 12:51 PM

QUOTED

Since you brought it up..... I know I'm new to this sport and probably have a different take on the handicap system. Before I get sidetracked with my view of the handicap system in general I'll comment on the new world system. I think it only effects a very very small percentage of golfers who compete worldwide and the differences between all the systems was minimal so it's not that big of a deal.

However, when I competed overseas cycling, everyone had to have a UCI racing license so that everyone followed the same rules. And even that was more about doping control and restrictions (thank goodness they lifted the restriction on caffeine).

Now then, back to the handicap system in general. It seems odd to me that everyone is deemed equal during a tournament. I just don't understand why someone who plays 6 times a year (drunk and stoned) should be "equal" to someone who has been playing 30 years, practices twice a week and plays every week while taking lessons from a PGA professional once a month.

I trained 6 days a week on the bike. Race officials didn't give some smuck who uses his bike for beer runs a 30 minute head start! There were separate races/classes for beginners and novices so that they could compete against each other for motivation as they moved up the ranks. But certainly beginners were NOT given a handicap or time bonus to compete with experts and elites.

There doesn't seem to be any incentive in golf to improve. I can have a double bogey handicap (36) and all I need to do is bogey 1 hole to beat a scratch golfer??? That's stupid. And don't even get me going on the golfers who enter a tournament with a 20+ handicap and shoot a low 80's..... Do away with the handicap system and that takes care of those people!

the handicap system in general is to give golfers of varying skill levels a chance to compete with each other.

if you don't like handicaps, just play in scratch tournaments.

but if a non serious golfer that plays once a month wants to play golf with his 6 handicap buddy, and they want to play a match, then handicaps are the only way to do it. i would imagine, if there were no handicap system at all, and these 2 people were to want to play 25 cent skins... they would agree on a handicap.. i'll give you 5 strokes a side... just so they can both have a chance to win. otherwise, the non serious guy would lose $4.50. the handicap system just gives the golfers a semblance of objectiveness.

now, there are issues with big money or high profile tournaments and sandbagging... and there are mechanisms to combat that. you might not think they are perfect... but they are there.

and by the way, if you are truly a 36 handicap, you ain't getting too many bogeys... the scratch golfer will get more birdies than you get bogeys.

Message #87259 - This was a reply to message #87213

Alex326

RE: World Handicap System - Thoughts

Member Since: November 20, 2015

Favorite Golfer: N/AFavorite Golf Course: Pebble Beach

Monday February 26, 2018 8:16 PM

When it comes to betting, I get the handicap. Just like a points spread. Otherwise everyone bets on the favorite or doesn't bet at all. However, come tournament play, I stand by my opinion that a weaker racer doesn't get a 10 minute head start and a weaker golfer shouldn't get strokes.

But if the R&A and USGA want a handicap system to make everyone equal, then I understand the new format. The new best 8 scores favors the better player. A 4 handicapper will shoot within a couple strokes of his/her handicap a lot more often then a 15 handicapper will shoot his. Or at least I would think.

I also think tournament scores should count for 50% of a players handicap calculation.

I know I'm probably an outsider with my thoughts But that's fine.

Message #87262 - This was a reply to message #87259

michaelko

RE: World Handicap System - Thoughts

NorCal Community Staff

Member Since: October 1, 2003

Favorite Golfer: N/AFavorite Golf Course: N/A

Tuesday February 27, 2018 9:57 AM

QUOTED

But if the R&A and USGA want a handicap system to make everyone equal,

I would like to see what formula they adopt. Remember the USGA owns the benchmarks and terminology (handicap, slope, et al.) as well as the formula used to determine handicaps. I wonder if the R&A and the USGA can come to terms. It would mean the merging of both bodies and I would think the R&A would have more to gain. Just thinking out loud here.